- The Labour Court upheld a CCMA finding that Vishen Mahabeer’s dismissal by Lucchini South Africa was substantively unfair, finding the misconduct charges contrived and unjustified.
- While confirming that Mahabeer committed no misconduct, the Court reduced his compensation from 12 months to six months due to an error about his employment status after dismissal.
- The judgment affirms employees’ constitutional right to seek alternative employment, even with competitors, and cautions employers against punitive disciplinary action rooted in retaliation.
The Labour Court in Johannesburg has rebuked Lucchini South Africa (Pty) Ltd, finding that the company unfairly dismissed its Safety, Health, Risk and Quality Manager, Vishen Mahabeer, after he explored employment opportunities elsewhere during a period of financial instability at the company.
In a judgment handed down by Judge T Gandidze on 19 December 2025, the court upheld an arbitration award that found Mahabeer’s dismissal substantively unfair, concluding that Lucchini had “manufactured charges” in a desperate attempt to prevent him from leaving to join a competitor. While the court reduced the compensation awarded from 12 months to six months’ salary, it made clear that the dismissal itself had no lawful basis.
“The charges against Mahabeer were trumped up and a desperate attempt to dismiss him,” Judge Gandidze held, adding that Mahabeer “did nothing wrong other than seek greener pastures, which he was legally permitted to do.”
Competing interests and constitutional rights
Mahabeer joined Lucchini in January 2021; however, within months, the company implemented short-time work and initiated retrenchment consultations under Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. Against that backdrop, Mahabeer reopened discussions with Cast Products, a direct competitor, ultimately triggering a disciplinary process that culminated in his dismissal in June 2021.
Lucchini alleged that Mahabeer breached his employment contract by negotiating with a competitor, withholding material information during retrenchment consultations, attempting to extort the company using its intellectual property, refusing to cooperate during his suspension, and misusing a relocation allowance.
The court rejected all five charges, finding that the contractual clause prohibiting preparatory steps to work for a competitor during employment was unenforceable and contrary to public policy. Judge Gandidze emphasized that employees retain the constitutional right to freedom of trade, occupation, and profession under Section 22 of the Constitution.
“A rule that prevents employees from seeking other opportunities without a quid pro quo is neither valid nor reasonable,” the court held, noting that no protectable proprietary interest had been identified by Lucchini.
No extortion, no dishonesty, no insubordination
On the allegation that Mahabeer attempted to extort the company during settlement negotiations by referencing Lucchini’s intellectual property, the court found that raising IP issues in the context of a mutual separation agreement did not amount to misconduct.
“This is one of those issues where reasonable decision-makers could have reached different conclusions,” Judge Gandidze observed, but confirmed that the commissioner’s finding fell well within the bounds of reasonableness.
Similarly, Mahabeer’s refusal to provide his personal laptop password following his suspension did not constitute gross insubordination. The court accepted that the laptop could be accessed through IT service providers and that Mahabeer’s response, while perhaps uncooperative, did not justify dismissal.
The relocation allowance charge was described as the clearest example of Lucchini’s desperation. The court noted that Mahabeer had lived in Gauteng throughout his employment, that HR was aware of his living arrangements, and that the issue only arose after he announced his intention to resign. “This was the real trigger for the charges,” the court found.
Compensation reduced, but wrongdoing confirmed
While the CCMA had awarded Mahabeer the maximum 12 months’ compensation, the Labour Court reduced this to six months after finding that the commissioner incorrectly recorded Mahabeer as unemployed at the time of arbitration. In fact, he had secured alternative employment within three months of his dismissal.
However, the court rejected the argument that compensation should be limited strictly to actual financial loss. Drawing on Labour Appeal Court authority, Judge Gandidze reaffirmed that compensation under the Labour Relations Act serves as a solatium for the infringement of rights, not merely reimbursement for lost income.
“The compensation cannot be limited to the three months that Mahabeer was out of work,” the court stated, emphasising the humiliation and emotional impact of the suspension and disciplinary process.
Costs and a warning to employers
Lucchini was ordered to pay Mahabeer’s legal costs, with the court criticising the company for pursuing what amounted to an appeal disguised as a review.
“Regurgitating the grounds on which an award can be reviewed is not sufficient,” Judge Gandidze cautioned, reminding litigants that the test is whether the outcome was one that no reasonable commissioner could reach.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
